The Catathymic Killer

[Mr. Poster]

HI ho

I want to start a thread on the notion of JtR as a catathymic killer, a construct within which we may find the "motiveless" non-hunter we have been discussing on other threads.

Catathymic killing was first described by Swiss psychiatrist Hans W. Maier in 1912 and can be defined as "in accordance with emotions". The term was then used by Wertham in 1937 in his elaboration of reasons for acts of severe and out-of-character violence.

Without elaborating upon the development of the theory in general, with regards to using it as a possible framework within the context of the Ripper killings, Revitch and Schlesinger (1981) progressed from Werthams notion (which involved long - term personal relationships) to a development of Satten, Menninger, and Mayman's (1960) theories pertaining to sudden interpersonal violence triggered by an individual whom the perpetrator has just met. Within this notion, two types of catathymia are described - acute and chronic.

The attached table is from Schlesinger (2004).

In this we can see that many of the characteristics of the Ripper murders feature in the criteria for an acute catathymic action - the killer meets a stranger, an interaction is precipitated and some event within that interaction occurs that leads to, within seconds, an unplanned vioelnt act with overkill.

There is often dismemberment, its completely chaotic, there is absolutely no planning and after the event the perpertrator has poor memory of it and probably is not even emotionally concerned by it.

In such a state, if our man was prone to acute catathymic type events, he would meet his victim (non-hunting), something would happen "Triggered by a sudden overwhelming emotion of attached
to underlying sexual conflicts of symbolic significance" and our man would, within seconds, be letting loose on the victim in an over the top way, possibly gutting her or attempting dismemberment and after it all he would be hard pushed to remember it or attach any emotion to it facilitating his immediate return to the bright lights of Whitechapel in an apparently nomrla state.

The work of Meloy (1992) concluded that out-of-the-blue catathymic homicides are affective—and not predatory-types of aggression, again indicative of a motiveless, non-hunting Ripper.

Schlesinger (2007) provides an interesting case study detailing an acute catathymic killing which could easily describe the situation pertaining to the actions of our man.

An 18-year-old student throttled a 22-year-old female nightclub entertainer
after she entered a petrol station where he worked. She initiated contact by asking to borrow a coin for a phone call then propositioned our student for sex. He tried, could not gain an erection and she mocked him with one comment. He then strangled her on the spot, put her corpse in his car and dumped it. Next day he thought it had been a dream but checked his car and figured out it wasnt. During interrogation, he recalled the crime as having occurred in a dream like state and related the tale in an emotionless, clinical manner typical for such murders.

It is important to realise that catathymic murders are not sexually motivated in the same way as a compulsive killer (the TV "serial killer") and there are ways of distinguishing between the two.

Schlesinger (2007) lists a number of these and two in particular stands out as far as we are concerned: in relation to the victim - in acute catathymic killings the victim is unknown to the killer, in unplanned compulsive killing the victim is often known to the killer; in relation to the crime - dismemberment or associated activities are common post moretm, in unplanned compulsive murders - the insertion of objects into orifices or sexual assault is more common.

Schlesinger (2001) also differentiates between the warning signs for compulsive killers (childhood abuse, inappropriate maternal (sexual) conduct, pathological lying and manipulation, sadistic fantasies with a compulsion to act, animal cruelty, voyeurism, fetishism, and sexual burglary, unprovoked attacks on females, associated with generalized misogynous emotions and evidence of ritualistic (signature) behavior) and those vulnerable to acute catathymic explosions (pretty much the only sign is that the potential perpetrator will confide feelings of sexual inadequacy to a confidant or may describe his potential to "explode" but otherwise no signs).

I am also now quoting from Schlesinger (ibid.):

"However, the individual who commits a planned compulsive murder commonly rapes, sodomizes, or tortures the victim before killing her."

"Many offenders who commit an acute catathymic homicide have been evaluated by mental health professionals prior to the explosion. Unfortunately, the depth of the future offender's disturbance is either well masked or is not fully understood by the examining clinician or, more likely, the offender is not properly questioned."

Individuals found to be at risk for a catathymic explosion need immediate intervention and treatment including the option of hospitalization—involuntary if necessary.....Individuals who make homicidal threats often wind up committing suicide (MacDonald, 1968)......Catathymic ideation indicative of an acute or chronic process is a foreboding sign that needs to be recognized and properly treated in an attempt to prevent tragedy.

I therefore contend, as I have long contended, and for which the above serves to support my contention, that:

1. Our man was an a normal chap who suddenly explodes due to a triggering event (acute catathymic killing),

2. After the event he is apparently normal,

3. the killings were unplanned,

4. the killings, in lack of sexual activity and post mortem abuse, are characteristic of an acute catathymic event rather than unplanned compulsive killing,

5. the environment in which the killings occurred was conducive to the type of scenarios where acute catathymic killings occur (contact with a stranger, situation whereby sexuality is called into question),

6. the killer did not necessarily display the type of behaviours we expect of killers from watching too much TV and the only indication may have been a vernalilsed comment to a confidant of feels of potential "explosion",

7. the killer was not hunting,


Interesting other characetristics of acute catathymic killers include the fact that they often commit suicide due to the killings and that they make little or no effort to conciously evade the coppers.

I maintain that an unlucky combination of the Whitechapel area and its many opportunities for sexual activity with insensitive hardened whores, the presence of our man (for whatever reason as he wasnt hunting) and teh primitive state of Victorian policing and the geography of the area precipitated the series of killings.

It is also highly possible, given that all the indications are of an acute catathymic event (no sex, no torture, dismemberment, strangers, sexual situations etc ) our man just topped himself sometime after.


Given all that ... who could be our man?

A sensitive soul, with possible sexual problems, outwardly normal, in Whitechapel at various times, not necessarily from there, who may have found interaction with a hard faced whore a bit too much, who may have confided his feelings of possibly "exploding" to family or friends and who topped himself some time after the events.

At any rate, the TV inspired, cunning, planning, hunter type he was not.

p


references:

MacDonald, J. M. (1968). Homicidal threats. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Meloy, J. R. (1992). Violent attachments. Northvale, NJ: Aronso

Revitch, E., & Schlesinger, L. B. (1981). Psychopathology of homicide. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Satten, J., Menninger, K., & Mayman, M. (1960). Murder without apparent motive: A study in personality disintegration. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 117, 48−53.

Schlesinger, L.B. (2004). Sexual Murder: Catathymic and Compulsive Homicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p. 162.

Schlesinger, L.B. (2007). Sexual homicide: Differentiating catathymic and compulsive murders, Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 242–256

Wertham, F. (1937). The catathymic crisis: A clinical entity. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 37, 974−977.

[Nemo]

That's Druitt isn't it - lol

Good post Mr P and I see your point

I will digest that info and get back to you later

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Nemo

Indeed. I have never been a Druitt man at all and have never even posted on a Druitt thread....but when one looks at the characteristics of the killings and the one indicative characteristic of such killers being that they may have confided in family or friends that they felt like they could explode and that they tend to top oneself ....its horribly Druitt-istic.

Not that that makes me a Druitt-ist, although in general I have nothing against him as he fits most of why consider to be reasonable about our Ripper.

But Im going to have to start perhaps lowering one foot tentatively off the fence and start considering Druitt a bit more.

p

[Nemo]

Hi Mr P

A few things spring to mind

The carrying away of flesh must surely have told him later that something untoward had occurred

And with all the publicity, surely he would have had some idea that he had killed - by the location alone

And after that fact, he still put himself in the position where this event occurred again - and was tooled up to complete the act

The killer described seems to me to refer, in the main, to a one off killer

Killing multiple victims in a short period must have impinged on his psyche at some point

It also implies to me that he would act in rage - but I think the killings were quite clinical - cut the throat, open the body, root around, take an organ - he had a purpose, not an immediate rage toward the victim personally

The tabulated stuff could easily fit the Ripper though

Food for thought...

[How Brown]

Dear Lars:

Just as an aside, if someone committed a murder based on the Catathymic concept...where they didn't remember what they had done immediately after committing murder ( lets take the Chapman murder)...would that diminish the likelihood of them panicking and actually facilitate their ability to walk away from the scene of a crime without the assumed & possibly concomitant mindset that makes one look,feel or react "guilty" ? Or would it make the person under this catathymic concept react with panic as its difficult to imagine someone,anyone,discovering what they've done in a case like this and then not reacting in a way that wouldn't make them appear guilty or respond to the need of escape in a satisfactory manner.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Nemo

The carrying away of flesh must surely have told him later that something untoward had occurred

Perhaps. But he may have opened his hand, gone "what the hell is taht?" and chucked it way in horror. At any rate, I am not denying he may have realised something was going wrong. hence the suicide?

And with all the publicity, surely he would have had some idea that he had killed - by the location alone

Again...no suggestion that he wasnt aware he was killing. But the "remoteness" of it psychologically could easily mean he wouldnt be as impacted by it as you or me.

And after that fact, he still put himself in the position where this event occurred again - and was tooled up to complete the act

According to the psychiatyr of it.....he doesnt know why it happened. He wouldnt know what triggered it nor how to avoid it. At any rate....maybe he did try to avoid it but all it may take is a filthy cat call from a whore when he refused her advances to set him off.

Killing multiple victims in a short period must have impinged on his psyche at some point

Suicide sounds like an impact-

It also implies to me that he would act in rage - but I think the killings were quite clinical - cut the throat, open the body, root around, take an organ - he had a purpose, not an immediate rage toward the victim personally

I see no evidence of clinicality. Guts everywhere, random hackings.
p

[Mr. Poster]

Hi HOw

if someone committed a murder based on the Catathymic concept...where they didn't remember what they had done immediately after committing murder ( lets take the Chapman murder)...would that diminish the likelihood of them panicking and actually facilitate their ability to walk away from the scene of a crime without the assumed & possibly concomitant mindset that makes one look,feel or react "guilty" ?

I reckon so. Apparently after the event, which they barely remember, they resume their normal activities. What better way to appear innocent of questioned than having no recollection of having done anything or at best thinking that you had dreamt it or seen it ina haze or something.

Or would it make the person under this catathymic concept react with panic as its difficult to imagine someone,anyone,discovering what they've done in a case like this and then not reacting in a way that wouldn't make them appear guilty or respond to the need of escape in a satisfactory manner.

The case studies reported in the literature indicate that even when acknowledging crimes committed in this way.....the culprit appears totally detached from them, describing them as if in 3rd person and, oddly enough, displaying acute embarrassment about minor details (such as having seen the victims breasts) while not displaying any particular emotion about having killed them at all.

p

[How Brown]

Dear Lars:

Out of further curiosity, could you provide,if its not too much trouble, an example of a serial killer who had this condition or at least point me in the direction of one who did.

Very interesting material,by the way.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi How

I don't know if there are any. Unlike most profiling gunk, the designation "catathymic" is a clinical psychiatric designation and is not one of your typical profiling buzzwords.

The extent to which anyone falls into the "cataegory" (or diagnosis) is a matter for a psychiatrist I presume.

This snippet from Knoll (2006) sums it up best perhaps:

"Meloy (2002) has advanced a similar typology, but with a clinical emphasis.
Sexual homicide perpetrators may be described as either “compulsive” or
“catathymic.” The compulsive perpetrators are similar to the FBI’s organized
killers. They leave organized crime scenes and can be diagnosed with sexual
sadism and antisocial/narcissistic personality disorders. The catathymic
perpetrators leave disorganized crime scenes and may be diagnosed with a
mood disorder and varying personality traits. While the compulsive type
display emotional detachment and autonomic hyporeactivity, the catathymic
type are less psychopathic. In contrast, the catathymic type are autonomically hyperreactive and may have histories of abuse. Again, these types were intended to be generalities, and any individual case is likely to fall on a continuum between the two."

So I suppose any "disorganised" serial killer is a potential catathymic killer depending on his psychiatric evaluation afterwards?

p

James Knoll MD, 2006, Serial Murder: A Forensic Psychiatric Perspective, Psychiatric TIme, March 2006, 64-68.

[How Brown]

Lars:

Wasn't it a lot better in the "old days" when we didn't have to wade through all the psychiatric stuff and we just called these people "jerkoffs" ?

Seriously, thank you for trying to locate one ( There might be a couple here on the site...like Covell Bundy and Jon 'Speck" Rees...for reference)....and please keep the conversation and information coming,its very interesting:kiss:( Thats for you...A catathymic kiss... don't worry,old man,I won't remember it in 15 seconds)

I'll go do some looking myself.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for an interesting post, MrP. Now all we need to do is find a good reason why a spontaneous catathymic killer (whether local or not is a separate argument) just "happened" to be strolling through various bits of a small area of East London at roughly 2:40*, 3:00, 5:20, 1:40, and 2:10 in the morning, and why he happened to have about his person a razor-sharp 6-8" blade when he did so. Interesting - and possible - though the "trigger" theory is, doesn't that spread of timings, and the presence of a weapon of that nature, look much more like someone deliberately setting out with intent to injure?

* Included for the benefit of Tabramites.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho How

Tomorrow I can go to the office library and wade through the papers to which I do not have access at home.

Hi ho SamF

Now all we need to do is find a good reason why a spontaneous catathymic killer (whether local or not is a separate argument) just "happened" to be strolling through various bits of a small area of East London at roughly 2:40*, 3:00, 5:20, 1:40, and 2:10 in the morning,

Probably the same reason all th eother people were out there: going to work, getting a tot of rum at 5 in the morning, going to stay with the Keelers at 3 am, etc. The LVP/Ripper case is overflowing with people on the streets at all hours so to suggest its improbable for any one to be on thre streets at any time, is, in face of the overwhelming evidence as to lots of people being out and about at all hours.......unreasonable at best.

and why he happened to have about his person a razor-sharp 6-8" blade when he did so.

Many men of teh LVP carried knives for work. And those who didnt probably carried them for self protection. Bit like the whores.

Interesting - and possible - though the "trigger" theory is, doesn't that spread of timings look much more like someone going out in the hope of finding someone to injure?

NOt to me at least. Looks like someone who was on the streets for any of teh thousand reasons everyone else was out on the streets.

Combined with the daft locations and their passive selection, the nearness to the main streets where most people were, the insane risk taking.....and mixed in with crime characteristics which suggest, and indeed accord with, a killer who was not out hunting.....and I take the logical conclusion.


And Not wanting to divert this thread, if you want to provide concrete evidence for hunting....I'm more than willing to read it one the relevant thread. Or indeed any evidence at all.

p

[Sam Flynn]

And Not wanting to divert this thread, if you want to provide concrete evidence for hunting....The evidence is the same for all, MrP... it's in the interpretation of the evidence that opinions diverge.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

Perhaps. But thats a topic for another thread I fear.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps. But thats a topic for another thread I fear.At a general level, MrP, the interpretation of evidence is a topic for all threads :)

[Mr. Poster]

We won't get into that SamF.

And by the way...."spontaneous" and "catathymic" cannot occur together.

One requiring a trigger and the other not...if you see what I mean.

Not like you to get your mutually exclusive-ables mixed up.

p

[Sam Flynn]

We won't get into that SamF.

And by the way...."spontaneous" and "catathymic" cannot occur together.

One requiring a trigger and the other not...if you see what I mean.I do - I realised it was an unfortunate choice of words, MrP, but "triggered/untriggered" are such ugly words in comparison.

[Pilgrim]

¨In 1912 Maier, published his dissertation research, "On the Subject of Catathymic Delusions and Paranoia." A detailed look at Maier's paper illuminates his use of the concept of catathymia to explain how underlying, emotionally laden conflicts can result in such a change in thinking that delusions develop.

Maier begins his treatise by defining catathymia and attempting to show how it relates to cases of (what we today would call) pure paranoia or delusional disorder. In an effort to understand why individuals develop specific delusional content in the way they do, he searched for unconscious connections that determine the makeup of psychotic ideas. The stream of the associations, he believed, "can go in the wrong direction (1) through the predominance of a relatively strong affectivity (p. 556) The delusional content is therefore greatly influenced by emotionally charged unconscious "complexes" such as a wish, a fear or an ambivalent ambition. Delusions that grow out of these underlying conflicts are catathymic delusions, and are to be differentiated from delusions that do not stem from complexes, such as those with an organic base. But even in mental illnesses that are primarily organic in origin such as manic-depressive psychosis, catathymic delusions can still occur secondarily, as long as the delusional ideas have a causal connection to an underlying complex. In contrast, delusions that are not a result of complexes, as in substance abuse, are not catathymic. Maier presents as an example an individual who became delusional as a result of bromine intoxication. Here, the delusions were not the consequence of any complexes but occured solely because of the effects of the substance and are therefore not catathymic.

The tenacity of the emotions connected to the underlying complex in catathymic delusions is an important consideration. As the delusion is (partially) caused by the emotional conflicts that are closely connected to the individual's life experiences it is not easily dissipated.The content of the catathymic delusion is especially shaped by the individual's emotional attitude (Affekteinstellungen) towards his underlying conflicts.

In an attempt to further clarify the meaning of catathymic delusions, Maier presents several clinical conditions with illustrative cases. (1) paranoia, (2) mental retardation, (3) "utter nonsense", (4) manic-depressive psychosis, (5) pseudologia fantastica (pathological lying), and (6) organic and intoxication disorders.

Paranoia, in Maier's view, is the quintessential disorder in which catathymic delusions occur. The first case he presents is of a highly intelligent woman who had a successful academic carreer but several unhappy marriages. She developed paranoia of a persecutory type but showed no other signs or symptoms that would indicate schizophrenia. The catathymic content of her delusional system was obvious, and it formed the groundwork of her successful treatment. In another case, an individual's strong wish for financial security could not be fulfilled because he developed a physical handicap, this conflict became the center of his catathymic delusional system, which was more intractable than the former case. Finally, Maier describes the case of a severely ill individual who had "gigantic ideas of persecution" that grew from underlying conflicts and rendered him extremely dangerous, difficult to control and resistant to treatment.

Louis B. Schlesinger , Sexual Murder, pp. 111-112. (http://books.google.no/books?id=PEKrSrKa4PIC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=paranoia+catathymia&source=bl&ots=u2NNA_5Vnw&sig=SN8AYZj2X5msyYWFpeerXSfyqSM&hl=no&ei=g8PpSb_NONTF-QbOx8nDBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA111,M1)

~~~

1. displacement (http://nosubject.com/Displacement)

~~~

*[Other] common paranoid delusions include the belief that the person has an imaginary disease or parasitic infection (delusional parasitosis); that the person is on a special quest or has been chosen by God** (http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp); that the person has had thoughts inserted or removed from conscious thought; or that the person's actions are being controlled by an external force. Therefore, in common usage, the term paranoid addresses a range of mental conditions, assumed by the use of the term to be of psychiatric origin, in which the subject is seen to generalize or project fears and anxieties onto the external world, particularly in the form of organized behavior focused on them.

[Nemo]

Wasn't Richard Chase of this type? I'm sure he believed his blood was drying into powder or something like that - and so drank his victims blood among other things...

Known as the "Sacramento Vampire"

And what of Kosminski thinking he knew the business of everyone in the World?

Is this being delusional or paranoid or both?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Despite having started this thread, I feel it would be a mistake to try and shoehorn our man into some kind of psychiatric category based on the presumption of him having done one thing or another for any reason. Especially as I am not a psychiatrist and have no skill in the subject.


Bearing that in mind however, I feel, and it was my intention, to try and show that there are frameworks that describe apparently motiveless extreme violence committed on strangers. That many of the characteristics of acute catathymic episodes accord with the Ripper observations is perhaps coincidence. The fact that such types of murders exists makes a mockery of the notion that our man was out "hunting" any more that the absolutely normal chap who kills the boy scout who turns up at his door for no apparent reason can be said to have been hunting boy scouts.
However it is always worth dipping into the works of people who are not appearing on TV constantly, do not pander to the masses with convenient buzzwords, do not use the sexual nature of the crimes they analyse to sell books and have some kind of credentials.

One of the interesting aspects of the whole thing is that acts such as dismemberment and possibly the removal of organs, which in our case is always taken as his having wanting a souviner, are just continuations of the episode....the infliction or more violence as opposed to taking a keepsake.

If nothing else...consideration of the notion demonstrates the complete and utter nonsense of attempting to say "Oh Jack did this or that because of this or that" or "He wouldnt do this and that because thats not what serial killers do" because violence committed by psychiatrically disturbed individuals (either long-term or just at the moment of killing) are not the actions of rational minds and what they do has no rhyme or reason outside of what is going on in their heads at the moment it occurs. retrospectively one could probably rationalise the action based on interviews or medical examination of the killer but without knowing the person it appears to me to be the height of arrogant folly to be expounding on what or what not certain killers would have done and why.




"the murderous potential can become activated, especially if some disequilibrium is already present, when the victim to be is unconsciously perceived as a key figure in some past traumatic configuration. [The] behavior, or even the mere presence, of this figure adds a stress to the unstable balance of forces, which results in a sudden extreme discharge of violence, similar to the explosion that takes place when a percussion cap ignites a charge of dynamite."

"(The offenders were) predisposed to gross lapses in reality contact and extreme weakness in impulse control during periods of heightened tension and disorganization. At such times, a chance acquaintance or even a stranger was easily able to lose his real meaning and assume an identity in the unconscious traumatic configuration. The old conflict was reactivated and the aggression swiftly mounted to murderous proportions (p. 52) "
. - Wertham, 1937.


"Catathymia has a long and distinguished history in forensic thought but is not well-known. It is a motivational pattern, not a diagnosis, in which “an
underlying emotional conflict creates an enormous amount of psychological tension, which is released through the violent act” . In its acute form, it may be sexualized, explosive, and homicidal, paralleling the term blitz attack used by the FBI to characterize disorganized sexual homicides" - Meloy, 2000


p


References: Wertham, F. (1937). The catathymic crisis: A clinical entity. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 37, 974-977.

Meloy, J.R., 2000, The Nature and Dynamics of Sexual Homicide: An Integrative Review, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1–22, 2000

[Sam Flynn]

The fact that such types of murders exists makes a mockery of the notion that our man was out "hunting"I can't see that the existence of one framework, out of many possible frameworks, makes a "mockery" of anything, MrP. Does the existence of schizophrenic murderers make a mockery of the notion that one might kill for the fun of it? Does the mere existence of Buddhists make a mockery out of the notion of atheism?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

I can't see that the existence of one framework, out of many possible frameworks, makes a "mockery" of anything, MrP.

It certainly does SamF when the evidence indicates one framework, calling it another makes a mockery of the original.

Calling a man an atheist when he's sitting on the pavement, bald, with orange robes and dousing himself with petrol makes a mockery of his being a Buddhist.

Two frameworks, the denotion of one, it contradiction of the evidence of the second makes a mockery of teh latter.

p

[Sam Flynn]

It certainly does SamF when the evidence indicates one framework, calling it another makes a mockery of the original.But the evidence does NOT indicate one framework - it's your interpretation of the evidence (or, rather, your finding a model that fits your interpretation) that's the issue. Yours is one possible interpretation, but it's by no means the only one, nor necessarily the most likely.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

Perchance. Yet the following lets me sleep at night:

1. There exists a framework by which sudden explosions of over the top violence committed on strangers by apparently normal chaps can be explained and for which significant and documented literature exists. As opposed to this we have endless discussions about "sexual", "non-sexual" etc.

2. The parameters that describe such events are all conveniently present in the Ripper case: no evidence of sex, sudden rapid violence, sitautions whereby sexual ability could be called into question, dismemberment/insane violence, no evidence of ritualistic anything, strangers etc.

3. The only suggestion as to predisposition of men or women to such violence tends to come from their confiding in families. They tend to commit suicide. The trauma precipitating such disposition tends to be maternal based. He was in Whitechapel. He was outwardley normal. All which happen to fit one particular candidate (which pains me greatly).

4. There is evidence of casuality in the killing locations - ie. not chosen by the killer, a passive selection. A typical of planned or hunting behaviour.

5. An outwardly normal character with psychological "distance" from the crimes would be an unlikely suspect in 1888.

6. There is no suggestion in either timing or location of the killings having been planned.

7. No evidence in the locations of a pre knowledge of the deeper recesses of whitechapel.

8. There is no suggestion that the victims knew their killer.

And so on and on......

And to counter this, very little is ever put forward. A fact hidden by the endless ramblings of the masses about what Jack ate for breakfast and whether that could account for his lunacy.

I dont know what he ate for breakfast but discussing it smacks of desperation.

p

[Sam Flynn]

4. There is evidence of casuality in the killing locations - ie. not chosen by the killer, a passive selection.But that evidence also places him in the area where these women were to be found, MrP. If he was that touchy, why do we see no "catathymic outbursts" elsewhere?

Also, there's nothing "passive" in accompanying Annie Chapman into the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, nothing "passive" in staying with Catherine Eddowes until he got to the darkest corner of Mitre Square, and nothing "passive" in stepping over the threshold of 13 Miller's Court. This man seems to have been after something, at least for part of his time with these women. Their murders have "purpose" written all over them.

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho SamF

because perhaps he wasnt frequently in any other areas at night where the whores were so aggressive or skanky.

plus he was dead (if we pursue the druitt theory or at least had a high probability of having topped himself) after kelly so why woul you expect killings anywhere else after that?

AS to you assertion about passivity. Its worth pointing out the illogicality of that.

A man meets a whore presumably at her initation. He can either lead her somewhere to have sex or follow her, the latter being passive. The act of following her is not proactive in teh conditiosn of teh encounter. Its passive. She takes the initiative. In the same way Kelly was the proactive actor...leading him to the room.

All of them were passive. If they had been proactive Kelly wouldnt have ended up in her room and all the rest would have ended up somewhere convenient for him, not for them. Unless you are wont to argue that all those killing spots were good for a killer. That they were easy to escape from. That they were not within earshot of main streets. That the bodies would have lain there for ages before being discovered. That no one would chance by during teh act. That no one would overhear from their doorstep. That there wasnt a bunch of Jews in a room over the killing spot. That it wasnt on a policemans regular beat.

DO you want to argue all that? Or deny it is true? Which would be difficult.

You genuienly think those spots were what a hunting killer would have picked with the stinking blackness of Whitechapel just 200 yards and a bit of non-passive persuasion away ?

If this was a hunting killer....could you possibly explain why not one killing of the five happpened in the deepest recesses of whitechapel?

Could you possibly expalin why the bodies were all found so quickly (not Kelly)?

Could you please expalin why virtually all the killings were overheard or come across while the corpses were still warm?

Could you explain at all why a "hunter", driven by "hunting" instincts only killed at the weekend? One wouldnt think that such a man would be prevented from "hunting" by the demands of his family or that a man who only "hunted" at the weekend for some reason then didnt bother his arse picking spots where the local bobby wasnt going to stumble over the still steaming corpse 3 minutes after the "hunter" left.

When we KNOW that hunting killers are not exactly keen on being nabbed and go to some lengths to conceal their crimes as long as possible.

p

[Sam Flynn]

DO you want to argue all that? Or deny it is true? Which would be difficult.No - it would be pointless, MrP. You have nailed your colours firmly to the "non-hunter" mast, and, whilst I acknowledge that as a possibility, I don't see as the evidence as making it as "probable" (or even "definite") as you appear to do. I wish you good luck in your proselytising efforts, but it's going to take more than mere spin, and the arbitrary trashing of legitimate arguments to the contrary, to convert me to this particular religion.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

arbitrary trashing of legitimate arguments to the contrary, to convert me to this particular religion.

That would be great.....but there hasnt been any arguments to the contrary.

In fact .... the entire case for "hunter" has been made by stating, presumambly with eyebrow raised and some kind of rhetorical fog hanging in the air:

"Hmmm.......but what would anyone be doing in Whitechapel?" (implying that only hunters and whores were there).

"Hmmm.....but why was no killed anywhere else ?"

"Hmmmm....but why were they killed at those specific times?"


And thats it! They aren't arguments! They are statements made in such a way as to try and load them with some ill defined and never elaborated significance.

And thats it. Its many things....but an argument it ain't.

p

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Mr P,

I have yet to read your 'hunter' thread, but have a couple of observations on this one if I may.

I am always terribly wary of anything that might depend on a captured killer's own version of events, such as a victim's alleged taunt about his manhood triggering an attack, and so on and so forth. I was reminded when reading this thread that Arthur Shawcross was a serial killer who claimed that over and over again he suddenly found himself in the throes of attacking another victim because she had come on to him and then tried to back off or threatened to have him accused of rape when he got aroused. In short it was all the women's fault and he would not have killed at all if they had left him alone. The thing that made me sick to my stomach was that this liar and fantasist was apparently believed by at least one psychiatrist when he claimed his own mother had anally raped him as a child with a broom handle. "In his dreams" would be my guess.

I agree that Jack appears to have passively followed his victims to a private or semi-private spot of their choosing, before launching his fatal attacks (although Liz may have paid the ultimate price for a refusal to budge from Dutfield's Yard, with its clubbers coming and going). But here's my point: he didn't launch any attacks, as far as we know, during the day or on any of the main thoroughfares where he was likely to have been approached by the likes of Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary. Nor did he suddenly take out his knife or go for a victim's throat halfway between a pick-up point and her intended destination, or in front of passers-by.

So presumably in your scenario the trigger had to be something that, fortunately for Jack, only ever happened once he had found himself safely alone with a victim. Was that coincidence, or the sign of a killer who is still in charge of what form the trigger will take, so he won't suddenly find himself 'going off' at the wrong time or place? And what did he think he was passively following each victim for, if he had no violent thoughts towards her until they were alone and she pushed all the wrong buttons? If his mind wasn't on murder, it was presumably on the same track as his victims - sex - unless he routinely followed strange women around for no apparent reason and they allowed him to do so for no apparent reason.

I take the point about the routine carrying of a knife, but would that typically involve keeping one sharp enough to carry out all the mutilations described on each occasion, ie very sharp indeed and no apparent lapses in his sharpening routine between one murder and the next?

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Caz

I am always terribly wary of anything that might depend on a captured killer's own version of events, such as a victim's alleged taunt about his manhood triggering an attack, and so on and so forth. I was reminded when reading this thread that Arthur Shawcross was a serial killer who claimed that over and over again he suddenly found himself in the throes of attacking another victim because she had come on to him and then tried to back off or threatened to have him accused of rape when he got aroused. In short it was all the women's fault and he would not have killed at all if they had left him alone. The thing that made me sick to my stomach was that this liar and fantasist was apparently believed by at least one psychiatrist when he claimed his own mother had anally raped him as a child with a broom handle. "In his dreams" would be my guess.

The problem is of course that no acute catathymic killer ever finds himself in the throes of anything as they are unaware of it at the time and have very poor recollection of it afterwards. So Arthurs plaintive pleas smack of self serving. Plus....unless I am mistaken.....it takes more than one psychiatrist to conduct an evaluation in such cases (legal).

Related is the fact that many killers who have conducted their actions "catathymically" suffer from quite serious mental problems and end up topping themselves in horror. Which, and I am as right wing as the next, hardly sounds like people trying to get away with something?

I agree that Jack appears to have passively followed his victims to a private or semi-private spot of their choosing, before launching his fatal attacks (although Liz may have paid the ultimate price for a refusal to budge from Dutfield's Yard, with its clubbers coming and going). But here's my point: he didn't launch any attacks, as far as we know, during the day or on any of the main thoroughfares where he was likely to have been approached by the likes of Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary. Nor did he suddenly take out his knife or go for a victim's throat halfway between a pick-up point and her intended destination, or in front of passers-by.

Why would he? If you meet someone on the street, your range of interaction is limited. So unless "Hello, Good Morning" or "Oh Excuse me" triggered some deep seated mental problem.....why would he kill anyone during the day?

Also, presumably he was at work during the day where converasation about, for example, his sexual prowess was hardly normal.

Third, there are a myriad of situations between a whore and her man that could hardly be conducted on the main street unless you want to contend that perhaps he was willing to take his John Thomas out and test its performance there and then in the middle of Whitechapel main street or proceed from Whitechapel Main street to wherever with it hanging out.

So presumably in your scenario the trigger had to be something that, fortunately for Jack, only ever happened once he had found himself safely alone with a victim. Was that coincidence, or the sign of a killer who is still in charge of what form the trigger will take, so he won't suddenly find himself 'going off' at the wrong time or place? .

Nope. It was probably the kind of trigger that could only be set off in the circumstances faciltated between a whore and her client in "private". Related to sex, payment, body parts, dirty talk, anything at all. NOne of which are likely to feature strongly in interactions conducted on the main street.

And what did he think he was passively following each victim for, if he had no violent thoughts towards her until they were alone and she pushed all the wrong buttons? If his mind wasn't on murder, it was presumably on the same track as his victims - sex - unless he routinely followed strange women around for no apparent reason and they allowed him to do so for no apparent reason


Sex? Perhaps he was drunk? Having a schizoid episode? High? The fact remains...selection of the locations was passive on his part. He didnt try and direct them deep into Whitechapel, he didnt try and find some spot that was better than a one exit overlooked cage or somewhere slap in the middle of a bobbys beat. That would have been proactive. But he didnt do that. He followed the passive route and allowed the women to select the spot.


I take the point about the routine carrying of a knife, but would that typically involve keeping one sharp enough to carry out all the mutilations described on each occasion, ie very sharp indeed and no apparent lapses in his sharpening routine between one murder and the next?


Why would anyone carry a knife, especially then, if it wasnt sharp? And we all agree that were many more reasons in the LVP to be carrying a knife than there are today.

If someone needs a knife for work or anything else....then why have a blunt one?

I never understand this point of "why had he a knife" and "why was it sharp".

Having a blunt knife is the same as having a shoe with no sole. It is not fit for purpose so why have it? Do you think the guy who sat outside his house listening to Chapman being killed had a blunt knife to cut his shoe leather?

Knives, expecially in the LVP, were probably kept sharp. Hence we have evidence of a completely different knife culture in the LVP than we do now. "Well ground down knives" and the like. Plus, even if he only used it to kill women...it only had to be sharpened once. If it was a half way decent knife and properly sharpened, cutting the soft tissue of whores is hardly likely to be dulling his blade rapidly now is it?

Plus....how could you or anyone else possible tell the difference from those cuts between a knife that was 100% sharp and lets say 75% sharp? Or even 50% sharp. Completely dull would I presume be easy to tell but 1)why would anyone have a completely dull knife, and 2) why would anyone assume that killing one woman would dull it. Plus if he was using it at work, perhaps he sharpened it regularly - every day perchance?

The only sharp knives I have ever used were scalpels....which were good for a week of cutting up dogfish which have seriously tough hides and standard work knives in a rubber factory which needed sharpening once a week.

Everyone has used a Stanley knife ("box cutters" for our American friends) and they don't exactly go blunt overnight or who would buy them? So why should anyone assume our man would need to constantly hone his knife to perfection or that even having a sharp knife was somehow strange.

My father carried a razor sharp six inch folding knife for most of his life, constantly, for cutting plug tobacco and scraping crap out of his pipe. Other than that he had no use for it. And that was hardly indicative of his being a psycho knife killer.

p

[Nemo]

I am always terribly wary of anything that might depend on a captured killer's own version of events

I was thinking a bit along these lines in that I think it should be considered where we got the term "catathymic" from?

Was it derived from numerous interviews with serial killers for example - in which a psychopath who had savagely mutilated a complete stranger for no reason just answers that he doesn't know why he did it. He felt a sudden rush of anger toward this stranger. He didn't have any memory of it later because, as a psychopath, he felt no guilt or remorse etc and we also get the mother fixation etc

In short, is it an invented term to fit the testimony of some questionable people?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Nemo

Th eproblem with your notion of it being something invented to fit peoples stories are numerous:

Its being an invented term.....it was invented in 1912. hardly the hey day of televise serial killing and pseudo scientific profiling.

"Catathymia has a long and distinguished history in forensic thought but is not well-known. It is a motivational pattern, not a diagnosis" - Meloy, 2000.

All case studies I have seen reported indciate that the culprits do not "use it" as a defence (it cannot be one as the crime WAS, by their own admission, committed) but fully and frankly admit their guilt, if in a somewhat detached manner.

The culprits typically have no idea what the underlying trauma was that was eventually triggered and it is only found in later analysis by a psychiatrist.

"At such times, a chance acquaintance or even a stranger was easily able to lose his real meaning and assume an identity in the unconscious traumatic configuration." - wertham, 1937.

In chronic catathymia the victims are usually people they are close to...wives, family, friends.

In catathymic killings there is often no overt sexual overtones. The chap who killed the girl scout who called to his door apparently killed her when he said he no change of a twenty for the cookies she was selling, she said she would come back next day, and he killed her because she was in a position to tell him what to do and did so. It was the feelings of no self-worth (a child ordering him about) that sparked him off. Nothing more.

That many acute catathymic killings are followed by suicide of the victims is indicative of people who are not looking for an excuse surely?

The fact that it doesnt appear in more defences and is, until recently, confined to the dustier pages of psychiatric texts is surely indicative of it being fairly easy to disprove in court or the fact that many murderers who fall prey to it kill themselves and therefore it never gets a chance to see the light of day?

p

[Nemo]

Hi Mr P

I just put that forward as worth considering

I wasn't necessarily referring to defence pleas or excuses - just the explanations given by killers really

It just seems very close to what a psychopath would construct or be diagnosed as having undergone - a catathymic "episode" where he killed a total stranger in an over the top brutal manner for no real reason and then not having that action bother him or even enter his memory later